Reasons being in the dark
Day forty-five -- Reasons being in the dark from Thakowsaizmu ... Especially seeing as how even though he is trying to make some universal language, he cannot use the languages he already knows to make any sort of point. We are all still half in the dark about this, and so he has failed in the communication area as well./quote Answer: There are, at least, two situations that one is in the dark. 1. His surrounding has no light. 2. He is unable to see any light either physically, mentally or intellectually. Yet, in my last post, I hinted that people can be half in the dark on an issue if its hypothesis has no theory or its theory has no predicting power. Thus, I did revisit my own website on PreBabel and am convinced that my paper "The theory and the method of constructing a true Universal Language ( http://www.prebabel.info/bab001.htm )" does not have the above-said defects. I guess that the problem is that it is too long a paper, and most of the people do not truly read it in its entirety. Thus, I will simplify it. Yet, I must discuss some issues before this simplification process. In the Wikipedia, it lists a topic, "Unsolved Problems in linguistics," with the following problems are unsolved. 1. 2. Is there a universal definition of the word? 3. Is there a universal definition of the sentence? 4. Are there any universal grammatical categories which can be found in all languages? Are these genuine problems? How can they be not genuine if they are listed as so in the Wikipedia? Well, if we take the Wikipedia as the Gospel, then, no further discussion is needed, indeed. However, I do not take that position and am making my points below. There are, at least, three different pathways for doing researches. 1. The phenomenology pathway -- from the entire phenomena of the "real" universe (the "real" linguistic universe in this case), some rules (theorems or laws) are obtained with 1. deduction 2. induction 3. etc. 2. The pure axiomatic system pathway -- a domain (universe) is "constructed" by a set of definitions and axioms, while this set can be arbitrary selected. As soon as such a set is constructed, some phenomena will arise among its members, and some rules (theorems or laws) can be obtained with 1. deduction 2. induction 3. etc. Then, this "constructed" universe must put into a comparison with the "real" universe, item by item and point by point, such as, their domain, their phenomena, their theorems and their laws, etc.. If the constructed universe is smaller than the real one, then, it is obviously not adequate, and it must be revised. In general, the constructed universe must be equal to or larger than the real universe for it to be a viable theory. 3. The hybrid of the two above -- Seemingly, the current linguistics takes the hybrid (the third) pathway. In the real linguistic universe, the grammar of different natural languages are significantly different from one another. Yet, they can be grouped into, at least, three groups. 1. a. Deductive group -- they follows some deductive rules. The Generative school is the leader on this, and this group includes the Head-driven phrase structure grammar, Lexical functional grammar, Categorial grammar, Relational grammar, and Tree-adjoining grammar, etc.. 2. Inductive group -- the grammar rules are not deduced but is formulated by induction. 3. the hybrid group -- As soon as we organize a body of phenomena from a particular starting point (grammar in this case), the entire universe (linguistic universe in this case) will be polarized around this point, and the other concepts in this universe will be distorted. So, 1. With the deductive approach on grammar, the definition for "word" is A. 2. With the inductive approach on grammar, the definition for "word" is B. 3. With the hybrid approach on grammar, the definition for "word" is C. Of course, the chance that A = B, B = C or A = C is almost nil. Thus, the so called "Unsolved Problems in linguistics" arises. However, if we take "the pure axiomatic system pathway," all those unsolved problems will disappear, as they will be defined at the beginning to demarcate a domain. Of course, this constructed domain (universe) will, then, be compared with the "real" linguistic universe. If this constructed linguistic universe cannot encompass the real linguistic universe, then, it is no good. If it can, then, we have found the entire underlying framework for this "real" linguistic universe. As the PreBabel claims to be the true universal language, this is a task must be done. After this, if someone is still in the dark, well, .... Signature -- PreBabel is the true universal language, it is available at http://www.prebabel.info